John Cook’s climate blog scepticalscience joins the list of those pushing the man made global warming meme which delete comment answering their brash rhetoric in ways they can’t rebut fairly in open debate.
I have been posting comments to a thread promoting a John Cook book entitled Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.
Before I show you the comment and my censored reply, here is a quote from the book:
“Just because there a professor of something denying climate change does not mean it is not true, it is just that the professor is in denial. This is why one must make use of the preponderance of evidence in science, the collective view.” – John Cook (“Climate Change Denial”, 2011).
John Cook and his acolytes have a lot to say about the mental state of people who have doubts about the IPCC view of climate change, making frequent reference to Dunning-Kruger, delusion and etc
It’s a scarily brief step from
“The professor is in denial” to “The professor is delusional” to “The professor would be better off keeping quiet” to “The professor has been removed to a mental institution for the good of himself and society”.
First they came for the professor…
But I digress.
Here is the comment and my reply, now, sadly,
censored
.
I noticed it had gone when I made a followup comment to a point I had missed:
So, sniptopicalscience.com joins norealcluemate.org and toomeano.wordpress.com ; filed in the round cabinet, where blogs which can’t tolerate open debate belong.
Good riddance to bad rubbish
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
The second part of Skywatcher’s comment has so much irony in it, it’s not funny. The fact the word “carbon” is used instead of “carbon dioxide” shows a high level of ignorance for proper science.
There is no doubt that if had left out “half-assed” your comment would have remained.
…LOL
When your adversary tries to prevent debate, you know that you have won. The mindless deniers of natural climate change know the CAGW conjecture doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and that their cause is lost!
I think we spend too much time arguing about the potential climatic impacts of AGW. Where AGW is weakest is on the physical impacts side – there’s no good evidence that it’s having a measurable impact on anything, or at least none that I’ve been able to find. This applies to extreme weather events such as hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, tornadoes, floods, droughts and blizzards, and also to glacier and ice sheet retreat, malaria, species extinction, crop yields and even sea level rise, all of which are at best weakly correlated with increasing temperatures and largely uncorrelated with greenhouse gas emissions. And if the earth warms by a degree or so and nothing happens, who cares?
Sometimes they make a real hash of their snips.
I was having an exchange with two IPCC advocates when Cook decided to snip a post of mine that had been up for about an hour.
Meanwhile the two IPCC advocates continued to refer to the by now “missing post”.
Other posters joined in, puzzled by the references that by now made no sense whatsoever.
The chaos continued for a further two hours.
Solution was found by deleting every post that referred to mine and any that questioned why there were the odd meaningless posts.
A shame, you were getting to the heart of the matter there Roger. The true nature of quasi-religious zealotry – Tyranny with a capital ‘T’. What do you expect from people who cannot separate questions of religion and morality (aka irrational fear) from hard science, they’re all the same.
Hi Eric; They snipped a line from one of my earlier comments, so it was more than a single phrase which bothered them. My guess is the lack of warming from before ’98 is starting to niggle.
Bryan; Lol. 🙂
The rules at Skeptical Science are pretty easy to follow. Stay on topic. No profanity. Give it a try and you can post till your fingers are sore. if you want to be take seriously it helps to back up your assertions with links to published works.
pbjamm:
Thanks for the tips. I did link to a relevant paper, and if “half-assed” is profanity, the moderator is a prude. 🙂
It seems that one of the regulars calling someone ‘denier’ or implying they are ‘delusional’ or that they are ‘afflicted’ is acceptable, but calling a piece of crap research ‘half-assed’ is beyond the pale.
There is a “Home Team Advantage” effect for sure but the John Cook himself is probably the only regular who has never had a comment deleted. The mods should crack down more on that sort of labeling but sometimes “the shoe fits”. Rehashing old arguments over and over tends to make the mods short tempered with people who bring it up again and think it a fresh new idea.
Such is life.
Yes, they must be mighty tired of nature refusing to co-operate with their co2 hypothesis.
One of the reasons I find myself forced to repeat points about TOA energy balance uncertainty is because the co2 hypothesis proponents keep repeating the same old meaningless IPCC sensitivity ranges. Along with stupid caveats such as, “can’t be less than…”
Meanwhile, science progresses.
Here’s the abstract I was trying to get skywatcher to read:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022407310001226
Can climate sensitivity be estimated from short-term relationships of top-of-atmosphere net radiation and surface temperature?
Bing Lina, , , Qilong Minb, Wenbo Sunc, Yongxiang Hua and Tai-Fang Fanc
a NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681-2199, USA
b State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY 12222, USA
c SSAI, One Enterprise Parkway, Hampton, VA 23666, USA
Available online 27 March 2010.
Abstract
Increasing the knowledge in climate radiative feedbacks is critical for current climate studies. This work focuses on short-term relationships between global mean surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere (TOA) net radiation. The relationships may be used to characterize the climate feedback as suggested by some recent studies. As those recent studies, an energy balance model with ocean mixed layer and both radiative and non-radiative heat sources is used here. The significant improvement of current model is that climate system memories are considered.
Based on model simulations, short-term relationship between global mean surface temperature and TOA net radiation (or the linear striation feature as suggested by previous studies) might represent climate feedbacks when the system had no memories. However, climate systems with the same short-term feedbacks but different memories would have a similar linear striation feature. This linear striation feature reflects only fast components of climate feedbacks and may not represent the total climate feedback even when the memory length of climate systems is minimal. The potential errors in the use of short-term relationships in estimations of climate sensitivity could be big. In short time scales, fast climate processes may overwhelm long-term climate feedbacks. Thus, the climate radiative feedback parameter obtained from short-term data may not provide a reliable estimate of climate sensitivity. This result also suggests that long-term observations of global surface temperature and TOA radiation are critical in the understanding of climate feedbacks and sensitivities.
Keywords: Top-of-atmosphere net radiation; Climate feedback; Energy balance
A reasonable estimate was produced by Peter Berenyi and posted at skeptical science a while back. He was talked out and nobody realised the importance of what he had done, except me apparently.
So this one paper turns climate science on its ear and invalidates a century of previous study? Wow, strange that you conclusion is completely opposite that of SkS. That paper is, after all, listed on this page concerning climate sensitivities.
Perhaps you could take the discussion of this paper back over there and educate the ignorant masses?
tallbloke, I’ll point out that your comment did violate the well publicized Comments Policy at SkS (http://www.skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml), in particular:
“No profanity or inflammatory tone. Again, constructive discussion is difficult when overheated rhetoric or profanity is flying around.”
and (in referring to work as “half-assed”), you were really pushing:
“No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticise a person’s methods but not their motives.”
Finally, you were running far far off topic, after (as I recall) a few warnings – lots of people get edited for that. There are threads for “warming stopped in 1998”, mitigation costs, etc; much more appropriate locations.
I’ve had my own posts snipped or deleted on SkS for not following the comments policy, which is intended to keep the discussion civil and focused on the science rather than rhetoric. In retrospect (when I more calmly considered the discussions), it was appropriate.
Following a policy like this is a choice – and your choice can lead to your posts getting clipped.
On short term measures versus longer term sensitivity (very interesting looking paper, Tallbloke), I believe Bender et al’s Mount Pinatubo paper is very clear that short term measures have high uncertainties.
I believe that’s less of an issue with the Tung 2007 solar cycle work (http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf), the Gregory 2002 ocean heat uptake (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2002/jmgregory0201.pdf), and other works – all of which end up with a roughly 1.5–4.5°C range.
Hi KR,
“No profanity or inflammatory tone. Again, constructive discussion is difficult when overheated rhetoric or profanity is flying around.”
The very title of John Cook’s book has an inflammatory tone.
and (in referring to work as “half-assed”), you were really pushing:
Earlier in the thread I was referred to as an ‘acolyte’ of McIntyre and Curry. I responded in kind by asking the accuser if they were an ‘acolyte’ of the IPCC consensus. That line from my comment was snipped. The comment was not deleted in its entirety.
“No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticise a person’s methods but not their motives.”
In that case, Gavin Schmidt’s comment on page 1 would have been snipped for his rhetoric about:
“people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.”
Finally, you were running far far off topic, after (as I recall) a few warnings – lots of people get edited for that. There are threads for “warming stopped in 1998″, mitigation costs, etc; much more appropriate locations.
I was addressing the previous commenters assertion that we had to “mend our carbon emitting ways”, and merely offering an example of why he might have a hard time convincing the public.
Following a policy like this is a choice – and your choice can lead to your posts getting clipped.
It wasn’t clipped or snipped, it was wholesale deleted.
A couple of examples of the inflammatory rhetoric and ascription of motivation I was subjected to earlier in the thread:
56 “And once again, please DNFTT [Do not feed the troll] TB [TallBloke], you are only giving them an opportunity to further their nonsense. It is pointless trying to reason and argue with Dunning-Krugers and ideologues…pointless.”
Haydn and Cook have looked into the fascinating psychological underpinnings of the denialism and “skepticism” movement. The psychological aspect of those in denial or “skeptical” of AGW has been ignored for too long IMO.
What is also interesting (and at times amusing) is that those afflicted with these traits, are so oblivious to their plight (some might say deluded) that they feel compelled to come here and defend their ideology,
67Person in question will twist, distort and misrepresent your position….
….Feel free to snip potentially offensive and/or off-topic bits.
Clearly, the author of these comments thought ‘bit’s of his/her comment might get snipped. The fact that the moderator didn’t demonstrates the double standard being applied, when my comment about “half-assed” research (along with reference to a John Cook approved piece of published scientific literature to prove my point) was not simply snipped, but deleted in its entirety. Personally, I find his/her comment downright sinister, offensive and illuminating. They certainly are not discussing climate science though, and if they are ‘on topic’ then neither is John Cook.
KR:
I believe that’s less of an issue with the Tung 2007 solar cycle work (http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf), the Gregory 2002 ocean heat uptake (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2002/jmgregory0201.pdf), and other works – all of which end up with a roughly 1.5–4.5°C range.
Which is a lower end value 25% less than the:
“it is highly unlikely that climate sensitivity will below 2 degrees per doubling of CO2 as you claim.” put forward by the comment at 68.
pbjamm:
Perhaps you could take the discussion of this paper back over there and educate the ignorant masses?
When they learn to speak more reasonably to people with scientific views that confilct with their own.
John Cooks blog policy is a failure. At this blog, you will find a very small proportion of comments where people speak disrespectfully of others. This is despite (or perhaps because of) the very simple formulation for blog rules here.
Tallbloke: “Which is a lower end value 25% less than the: “it is highly unlikely that climate sensitivity will below 2 degrees per doubling of CO2 as you claim.” put forward by the comment at 68.”
Quite right. Note, however, that the IPCC probability estimate of the sensitivity being below 2°C is (IIRC) roughly 1/20 – that’s not a great bet. Given the data, with a most likely sensitivity of 3°C, I think it only prudent to operate on that basis. There’s definitely some uncertainty, although it’s been reducing more and more with additional work, but assuming that all uncertainties will work in our favor is (IMO) just wishful thinking.
KR:
Only if you go along with some of the other assumptions. Like the estimates of the size of alleged positive feedbacks.
Uncertainty on cloud feedback is the elephant in the room.
Then there’s water vapour feedback. Ill show you what controls specific humidity at the tropopause (300mb) level.
Then there is Miskolczi. still unrebutted in the literature. SoD had a go, but it doesn’t look like he made much headway to me. If there is a terrestrial mechanism maintaining atmospheric opacity at a constant level,, all bets are off for AGW. If Miscolzci is right, then the solar-reduced water vapour at the tropopause is compensated by elevated water vapour at lower altitudes, leading to cloudier conditions at low altitude, a negative feedback. This is then part of the solar signal amplification mechanism discovered by Nir Shaviv. http://sciencebits.com/calorimeter
Then there is the assumption we’re not simply in a longterm recovery from the little ice age, which turns out to be a worldwide phenomenon.
Then there’s the assumption the longterm ocean cycles didn’t have much to do with the late C20th warming. Well, they seem to have something to do with 21st century stasis and cooling, so how much did their positive phase augment any co2 driven warming by?
I’m sure you can point me to plenty of wordy arguments with references to the literature on SkS to help me decide.
KR: but assuming that all uncertainties will work in our favor is (IMO) just wishful thinking.
Never a truer word was spoken.
Tallbloke, uncertainty in all feedbacks is the question. And measuring total climate response to known forcings answers it. Our knowledge of that number is converging on 3C for a doubling of CO2, or ~0.8C/Watt of forcing. And that includes cloud feedback, aerosol feedback, Martian interference, etc. – known forcing in, observed temperature change out -> sensitivity.
As to Miscolzci – are you still keeping with that hogwash, I mean, that curious paper? Spencer has quite a commentary on it (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/), and even more importantly, if Miscolzci’s theory was correct the combined CO2/H2O feedback required for the ice age temperature swings could not have occurred. This provides an immediate Reductio ad absurdum proof that Miscolzci is simply wrong.
I can see that you follow a number of the skeptical lines – I’m afraid I find them less than convincing, and a mismatch with real-world observations. Adieu.
Exit stage left in a puff of illogic.
No attempt to address the natural variation which warmed the planet’s surface for 220 years before serious co2 emission got underway.
No attempt to address oceanic cycles which are clearly present in the temperature record.
Both of these affect the alleged value of the climate forcings KR thinks we know the values of, which are derived from a misunderstanding of temperature history which ignores these natural variations.
But I shouldn’t be hard on KR. I haven’t found a a co2 driven climate proponent yet who would give a straight answer to the question of how much natural variability contributed to late C20th warming, now that it’s evident to all that the negative phases of these natural variations are contributing to C21st non-warming.
Regarding Miskolczi. It is true that he hasn’t necessarily found coupled thermodynamic laws in every case where he posits them. Nonetheless, his empirical work stands, and now that the sunspot numbers are thought to be too high during Waldmeiers tenancy of spot counter in chief, the correlation between the NCEP re-analysis he used and the solar data just got even better, providing mutual support to both those records.
No wonder KR and cohort don’t want to stick around to discuss the detail.
Natural variations (ocean cycles and the like) are estimated at +/-0.3C, tallbloke. Longer scale cycles, well, I’ll point you to Tamino (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/mathturbation/) to discuss those – there simply aren’t any (no evidence for any) that could account for the last 100 year temperature record.
I’m constantly puzzled by this – we know the physics of the radiative greenhouse effect, we know how much CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere, and along with TSI, volcanic aerosols, and the ever present variations like the ENSO – it adds up to just the temperature changes we’re seeing.
Why are you (and other ‘skeptics’, a term I use advisedly) so intent on saying “it’s not our fault?” or “it’s not bad”, to the extent of attempting to pull rabbits out of hats (hypotheses without evidence, like Miskolczi, Lindzen, etc.) to dodge it? You need to both disprove everything we know about atmospheric physics and postulate an entirely new physics to do so – that smacks of a desperate dodge. It certainly isn’t science…
Contrarians seem to have an aversion to finding answers and doing research. The best they can seem to muster is “Ah ha! you didn’t address $VARIABLE!” when in fact it was discussed in the paper they clearly did not read.
Read more, talk less.
KR: The volcanic forcing is junk. It’s there to counteract the effect of badly overestimated water vapour feedback, which isn’t a feedback to co2 at all but to the Sun. That’s part of the reason why the models are diverging from reality.
The ENSO is a function of solar activity levels and the associated terrestrial feedbacks to solar forcing. Read my latest post for more info.
“You need to both disprove everything we know about atmospheric physics”
Nature already disproved the mid tropospheric tropical hotspot. And you don’t heat coffee with a hairdryer anyway. The sun heats the oceans, the oceans heat the air, the air loses heat to space. A small increase in the altitude the air radiates to space from due to co2 increase isn’t going to explain ocean warming 1980-2003 even if we leave Miskolczi out of it. Only the Sun and it’s terrestrial feedbacks can do that.
Most of atmospheric physics is ok. The problem is with incompetent application of it.
pbjamm: I won’t be responding to or tolerating inflammatory bullshit so take it home with you when you leave. Don’t let the door bang your arse on the way out now.
researchers at Newcastle University conclude that elevated temperatures in the Murray-Darling basin were a combination of natural factors:
Lead researcher Associate Professor Stewart Franks, from the University’s Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, said the findings were based on known principles of physics.
“Senior climate change researchers have claimed that higher temperatures lead to higher moisture evaporation and that this is why the Murray Darling Basin has experienced such a harsh drought,” Associate Professor Franks said.
“This is incorrect and ignores the known physics of evaporation.
“During drought, when soil moisture is low, less of the sun’s radiant energy goes into evaporation and more goes into the heating of the atmosphere which causes higher temperatures.
“Most importantly, the elevated air temperatures do not increase evaporation but are actually due to the lack of evaporation and this is a natural consequence of drought.
“Therefore any statement that the drought experienced in the Murray Darling Basin is a direct result of CO2 emissions is fundamentally flawed.”
Associate Professor Franks said the findings of the study highlighted the importance of getting the science right.
“A key concern is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – which advises governments around the world – has used the Murray Darling Basin and incorrect science as an example of CO2 induced climate change.
Tallbloke, I think I understand the basis of your post all too well, and it has nothing to do with supposed Skeptical Science censorship.
At Skeptical Science they have a strict comments policy which is strictly enforced, but it is also clearly defined. Consequently if you want to debate there it is very easy for you to do so, and that is regardless of the supposed bias of the moderators. You simply stick strictly on topic, strictly on the science, and strictly avoid inflammatory comments or profanity. That is really not so hard to do. And if you do have posts snipped or deleted, ask the moderators why, and then repost the scientific comments without the wording that the moderators claim is the reason for the snipping or deletion.
You could try doing that as an experiment. If you are able to debate by following that policy, then Skeptical Science is not trying to censor debate. If not, well then you will have proof of censorship. But crying home to your fanboys just because one post got snipped? That only shows you weren’t serious about debating in the first place.
Personally I want you to come back because so far as I can see, your science is very weak, and easily refuted. I like easy targets. I also like having examples of denier nonsense on the boards being clearly dissected to demonstrate just how weak the denier case is.
Won’t tolerate, eh? Planning to delete my comments and censor me? What about your blog rules? I thought there were none?
Not so easy to remain objective when it is your personal space someone is cluttering up with comments is it? This was some mild half-assed trolling too.
I was the one who exposed such quotes from Cook’s book. I got them posted there by making a very neutral comment about them but when I was jumped on even so, I was moderated out in defending myself. That’s how all the alarmist sites work. They lure you in with an initial liberal moderation policy and then cut you off as soon as they can get in a good sounding insult and then your lack of reply (due to censorship) is seen by their cultish followers (who don’t experience moderation) as them winning a debate and scaring you away.
I was also moderated like crazy on a Jim Hansen video post there. When I pointed out pertinent points about Hansen’s selective reasoning, it was allowed to post, followed by a quick arrogant insult from a moderator, and then I was banned from the thread.
The same thing happened as soon as I quoted a bunch of stuff from John Hoggan’s book on his DeSmogBlog site.
Here are those quotes. The one’s at the end explain why so few alarmists even dare ponder skeptical arguments in any logical manner!
“Nobody wants to be the only person on the block who is spending money
to repower their their heating system. No one wants to give up their
car, change their diet, or limit their consumption if their efforts
will be rendered irrelevant by the consumption patterns of those
around them.” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“Someone who is highly trained in rhetoric can argue any question from
any angle.” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“In his 1928 book The Business of Propaganda, Bernays put into words
something that every demagogue in history probably knew instinctively.
He wrote, “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group
mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according
to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of
propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain
point and within certain limits.” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”,
2009)
“Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels praised another of Bernay’s books,
‘Crystallizing Public Opinion,’ as having been helpful in crafting the
campaign against German Jews.” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”,
2009)
“It might be worth contemplating the slippery slope that faces people
in public relations who forget their duty to society – the Public
Relations Society of America’s caution to practice “professionally,
with truth, with accuracy, fairness, and responsibility to the
public.” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“Boykoff and Boykoff telegraphed their point about the mainstream
media in the title of their paper “Balance as Bias.” Journalists in
the modern age find it all but impossible to stay up to speed on every
issue, especially every issue of science. To protect themselves, they
very frequently fall back on the notion of balance: they interview one
person on one side of an issue and one person on the other. There is
even a fairly common conceit in North American newsrooms that if both
sides wind up angry about the coverage, the reporter in question
probably got the story about right.” – John Hoggan (“Climate
Cover-Up”, 2009)
“I have never liked the term “spin doctor,” and I hate the definition
– at least I hate that someone would propose “PR person” as a
reasonable synonym.” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“Spin is to public relations what manipulation is to interpersonal
communications.” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“Lies are darned handy when the truth is something you dare not
admit.” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“This is all excellent advice, especially appropriate if you are
trying to recover your reputation after an unfortunate accident.” –
John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“In court (and before you conclude that I am lawyer-bashing, I learned
all this in law school myself, there is a convention that every
accused person deserves the best possible defense, and it is the
lawyer’s duty to mount that defense to the best of his or her ability.
We have even grown to accept the idea that it’s acceptable to
construct a case that is entirely – almost deceptively – one-sided,
knowing that the lawyer on the other side will bring equal vigor to
the case.)” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“What you cannot see is any evidence that anyone, at any time, asked
whether what they were doing was right – whether, for example, the
messages they were testing could have been incorrect and ultimately
harmful.” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“Don’t corporations have have a responsibility to communicate in a way
that is fair, and in the public interest?” – John Hoggan (“Climate
Cover-Up”, 2009)
“Environmental skeptics are not, as they portray themselves,
independent and objective analysts. Rather, they are predominantly
agents of conservative think tanks, and their success in promoting
skepticism about environmental problems stems from their affiliation
with these politically powerful institutions.” – John Hoggan (“Climate
Cover-Up”, 2009)
“The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need
to to take action and we can’t have people undermining it.” – quoted
by John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“There was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by
natural climate variations.” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“Denying it was wrong. Delaying action is dangerous. People who say
otherwise should, at some point in the very near future, have to stand
accountable for their recklessness.” – John Hoggan (“Climate
Cover-Up”, 2009)
“There is a greater than 90% chance that our spaceship is going to
crash” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“Cooper makes outrageous accusations, saying that scientists are
faking climate change so they can fleece governments for additional
research funding.’ – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“Cooper himself has benefited financially in oily investment in
disinformation” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“I want to scream at the television: That’s not true! If Benny Peiser
can’t find a single peer-reviewed article in any reputable science
journal any time in the last fifteen years, if Lawrence Solomon can’t
find even one well-qualified “denier” who in point of fact *denies*
the human contribution to potentially dangerous climate change, well,
this alleged scientific controversy can only be dismissed for what it
is – a carefully constructed ruse to keep people from supporting the
kinds of actions that will compromise the profit potential of
ExxonMobile, the Western Fuels Association, and the American
automakers, whose fortunes were shattered after they bet their futures
on the continued gullibility of the SUV-buying public.” – John Hoggan
(“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“As chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, I am gratified that
environmental organizations have credibility. But that only covers one
of my volunteer commitments. As the owner of a public relations
company whose work come mostly from corporations, I began to wonder,
if the public doesn’t trust corporations, what do they think about
public relations people?” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“We need to reduce our carbon output by something close to 80% by
2030.” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“You will be consuming a steady diet stories that suggest that some
aspects of climate science are still in doubt.” – John Hoggan
(“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“You should be hypervigilant.” – John Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“Join the neighborhood watch of those who people who no longer stand
for disinformation to be passed around your social circle.” – John
Hoggan (“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
“That’s what we need: vigilance. Eyes on the street.” – John Hoggan
(“Climate Cover-Up”, 2009)
P.S. enjoy this, my Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming:
I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming:
Denial: http://bit.ly/m6xySt
Oceans: http://oi53.tinypic.com/35b9g08.jpg
Thermometers: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2agnous.jpg
Ice: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2upvlvm.jpg
Earth: http://oi56.tinypic.com/2reh021.jpg
Authority: http://oi52.tinypic.com/wlt4i8.jpg
Prophecy: http://oi52.tinypic.com/30bfktk.jpg
Psychopathy: http://oi52.tinypic.com/1zqu71i.jpg
Thinker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y
Hi Nick,
thanks for your effort in going through these books and highlighting these quotes. Feel free to post more of the John Cook quotes you have picked out. Then we can objectively, dispassionately, and respectfully discuss them with our interlocutors from SkS. 🙂
By the way, I came across a blog the other day dealing with the removal from David Suzuki’s website of a number of pages attacking the Canadian fish farm industry. I wonder if John Hoggan was involved.
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/
“This thread is open to all who can stay on topic. Comments containing off topic grandstanding, name calling etc will hit the bottom of the bit bucket. So don’t start bellyaching afterwards.”
From your very own “What temperature would Earth’s surface be without greenhouse gases?” thread.
Oh the irony.
[reply] At least I’m being upfront, honest and direct, rather than sneakily deleting peoples contributions without a word like John Cook’s blog moderators do. I haven’t had to delete anything yet, and if I do have to, I’ll be honest about it and let everyone know.
That remains to be seen I guess. Or perhaps not since if you were to delete a comment without notice then there would be no one to know. Your comment that is the subject here was not totally deleted, but edited. I actually prefer the old days when posts were deleted in their entirety when the violated the comments policy (one that reads very much like your new policy I might add) as it was less work on the moderators and I think did a better job of keeping discussions on track. Normal procedure when deleting or editing posts is for the moderators to note it inline. Why they failed to do so in the case of your comment I can not say.
There is an amazing amount of contrary views and science free nonsense that is allowed on Skeptical Science if it adheres to the comments policy. Pick some of the longer (600+ comments) posts and see for your self.
[reply] You say:
“Your comment that is the subject here was not totally deleted, but edited.”
My screenshots above say otherwise. What is there now is the followup to the deleted comment
I will take your word on it but it is not obvious from that picture. They are both comments by you in the same place in the thread.
I do not think you comment worthy of deletion but I am not a moderator.
[reply] Maybe as a skeptical scientist, you should be considering the scientific content, rather than the poor excuse for it’s deletion.
Hey TB you should check out any comment of yours they’ve published, perhaps by now they have tampered with it to make you look awfully stupid…